MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2294332356 · doi:10.3109/09273948.2015.1125510

Optical Coherence Tomography-Based Quantification of Photoreceptor Injury and Recovery in Vogt–Koyanagi–Harada Uveitis

2016· article· en· W2294332356 on OpenAlexaff
Steven S. Bae, Farzin Forooghian

Bibliographic record

VenueOcular Immunology and Inflammation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Diseases and Behçet’s Syndrome
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptical coherence tomographyMedicineOphthalmologySerous fluidVogt–Koyanagi–Harada diseaseRetinalRetinaUveitisVisual acuityHigh resolutionTomographyRadiologyPathologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To determine if the inflammatory composition of subretinal fluid in Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada (VKH) serous retinal detachments is predictive of photoreceptor injury, and to quantify photoreceptor recovery, following resolution of these detachments. METHODS: Optical density (OD) measurements of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) scans were used to derive the fibrinous index, a measure of the inflammatory composition of subretinal fluid. In order to assess photoreceptor status, photoreceptor outer segment (PROS) volume was measured from SD-OCT scans. RESULTS: The fibrinous index of subretinal fluid in VKH uveitis was strongly correlated with the PROS volume following resolution of subretinal fluid (r = -0.70, p = 0.006). Following fluid resolution, both PROS volume (p < 0.0001) and visual acuity (p = 0.0015) improved. CONCLUSIONS: The fibrinous index of subretinal fluid during the acute stage of VKH can predict photoreceptor status following resolution of subretinal fluid. PROS volume is a useful measure of photoreceptor recovery in VKH.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOcular Immunology and InflammationSame topicOcular Diseases and Behçet’s SyndromeFrench-language works237,207